You've hit the nail on the head. The whole point of the video is to demonstrate that at a normal viewing distance, the difference between 2K and 4K is often indiscernible without zooming in. Your experience aligns perfectly with what was discussed in the video. Thanks for sharing your observation.
Very thoughtful presentation. I think this says a lot about compression on RUclips. A couple of other reactions, I would recommend you include some example images that are not close-ups or medium shots of actors. I've always found lower resolutions are more forgiving on human faces than on wide shots with a lot of details like city streets, etc. I'll also add that when viewing 4K in a theatrical environment with the right projector and screen, there is a perceivable enhancement in a well-produced 4K image with fine detail over 2K/1080p.
there is a very sutble difference, I can tell 4k over 2k but only when I'm really looking to spot the difference like on the iris; otherwise, 99% similar because 2160p is double the 1080p
Whenever a source was mastered in 2K to start with, upscaling is required to bump it up to 4K to be sent out for a 4K UHD physical release. Although it won’t be as highly detailed with more depth like a true 4K picture would, the uptick in detail can be a hit or miss. There can be ones where they’re a subtle but noticeable upgrade and others that are sharper than their 2K/Blu-ray counterparts. The HDR/Dolby Vision palette can squeeze every ounce of color out of the image as possible and can look fantastic if done right.
Nicely done, would like to see the comparison with film grain as well. My guess would be that it would be even harder to distinguish the differences. But given the youTube codecs, I think we still need to master to the 4k version for streaming - as I mentioned on FB, I wonder if running the 2k through Resolves Superscal would help as well? Nice job Stephen.
Thanks. As you can see in the beginning of the video with the "drill" image, RUclips is transcoding 1080p uploads into a "mushy image", and that is not just caused by compression. But besides RUclips a 2k image can look pretty much the same as a 4k image, (before compression) and over time the bitrate for 4k streaming will go down, and Steve Yedlin says in his video that this might couse a "downward spiral" thinking people... oh now 4k is not good enough anymore, we need 8k to get rid of artifacts, but the fact is that we will end up seeing more artifacts because we need even higher bitrates to make higher resolution image look good. But for RUclips I highly recommend uploading in 4k. 4K looks much better (based on transcoding and higher bitrate), but the fact is that a 2k image at a higher bitrate can even look better. ;)
@@StefanRingelschwandtner I think that the higher the resolution the more compression they use to capture the image in the first place. 8k capture is going to mean more compression - so one thing may negate the other.
best video explanation about 2k vs 4k , file compression and viewing distances!! Stefan you are really great! thanks for the effort and time you put on this. My doubts were if I should invest in a 27 inch 4k monitor since I already have a 27 inch 1440p one.. Im always sitting around 60-72 cm away ( my desk is not too wide 77 cm). and in my 27 - 1440p I can't see any pixels pictures look sharp and clear ..
so here's my question: from what i've heard higher bit rates are helpful for live action. would 4k factor into that? obviously if the bit rate overflows your download bit rate, that's a problem but would it be noticeable if it didn't? things like American football, for example i've heard are used as examples. also: don't the codecs matter insofar as it they may code for 4k, but the quality is lowered to lessen the output bit rate? sort of like the quality setting for a jpeg. doesn't do much good if you have 4k but the codec has been dialed down to a much less quality. thx though. this was my suspicion overall.
Brilliant! Excellent analysis, and matches the observations of anyone with functional eyes and a brain. When will people learn that what they want is better bitrate/compression rather than resolution, and that yearly increases in camera resolution just make the problem worse, not better. Give me a pristine 1080p image over a low-bitrate 12K image any day of the week. Morons.
Great comparison, but one thing to consider is that you are using tight detailed shots. I imagine the difference would maybe be much more apparent with wider or more landscape shots.
Stilll, viewing distance is very important. That microdetail gets lost at certain distance, its more practical use is zoom & crop, not microdetail, unless you like to get up from your seat to see a static frame.
2k is marketed as 1440p, which is what i thought this video was comparing 4k to. There is a very obvious difference between 1080p and 4k, there is a notable difference between 1080p and 1440p even.
So basically for viewing purposes, consumer use, 4K is kinda overkill, kinda useless, a waste of resources, like soon to be 8K. For production use, totally usefull.
1080p = 1920 × 1080 pixel 2k = 2048 × 1080 pixel Quote from Wikipedia: "For television and consumer media, 1920 × 1080 is the most common 2K resolution, but this is normally referred to as 1080p"
Jeff you are more correct mate. 1440p is essentially a native 2k display. Referring to 1080p as 2k is a very old naming system. It's based on total megapixels like old digital camera sensor resolution. Based on that system a 4k monitor would now be called 8k because it displays 8.3 million pixels.
@@originalface320 No, actually you and Jeff are wrong. 2K and 4K refer to the Horizontal Resolution. So 1920x1080 HD is close to 2000 or 2K, and likewise 3820x2160 UHD is also rounded up to 4000 or 4K. There IS however a discrepancy between consumer HD/UHD vs DCI 2K and DCI 4K, which are 2048x1080 and 4096x2160 respectively. Now, while I'm typing this on Dual 2560x1440 27-inch displays, those don't use HD/UHD/DCI classifications, but rather computer classifications, in this case QHD. Online some people call anything anything, and in the camera world I've heard this called 2.5K, but at least that mistake is attempting to demonstrate something. There's no "old naming system" and it has nothing to do with megapixels or camera sensor resolution. And actually if you want to know, 8K resolution is 7680x4320 UHD, & 8192x4320 DCI.
2k vs 4k in general. This video is proving that at normal viewing distances, the human eye cannot discern the difference between 2K and 4K resolutions.
I must be blind because I can't tell the difference unless you zoom in!
You've hit the nail on the head. The whole point of the video is to demonstrate that at a normal viewing distance, the difference between 2K and 4K is often indiscernible without zooming in. Your experience aligns perfectly with what was discussed in the video. Thanks for sharing your observation.
true !
because you are watching this video in 1080p
Very thoughtful presentation. I think this says a lot about compression on RUclips. A couple of other reactions, I would recommend you include some example images that are not close-ups or medium shots of actors. I've always found lower resolutions are more forgiving on human faces than on wide shots with a lot of details like city streets, etc. I'll also add that when viewing 4K in a theatrical environment with the right projector and screen, there is a perceivable enhancement in a well-produced 4K image with fine detail over 2K/1080p.
there is a very sutble difference, I can tell 4k over 2k but only when I'm really looking to spot the difference like on the iris; otherwise, 99% similar because 2160p is double the 1080p
Whenever a source was mastered in 2K to start with, upscaling is required to bump it up to 4K to be sent out for a 4K UHD physical release. Although it won’t be as highly detailed with more depth like a true 4K picture would, the uptick in detail can be a hit or miss. There can be ones where they’re a subtle but noticeable upgrade and others that are sharper than their 2K/Blu-ray counterparts. The HDR/Dolby Vision palette can squeeze every ounce of color out of the image as possible and can look fantastic if done right.
I got the eos-m with magic lantern shooting 1080 / 2k raw and you have confirmed my suspicion. Great breakdown.
me watching a 2k vs 4k comparison video on 720p thinking ill be able to tell the difference...
The 2k upscaled to 4k(media player classic) looked the best
thank you for your work!
Nicely done, would like to see the comparison with film grain as well. My guess would be that it would be even harder to distinguish the differences. But given the youTube codecs, I think we still need to master to the 4k version for streaming - as I mentioned on FB, I wonder if running the 2k through Resolves Superscal would help as well? Nice job Stephen.
Thanks. As you can see in the beginning of the video with the "drill" image, RUclips is transcoding 1080p uploads into a "mushy image", and that is not just caused by compression. But besides RUclips a 2k image can look pretty much the same as a 4k image, (before compression) and over time the bitrate for 4k streaming will go down, and Steve Yedlin says in his video that this might couse a "downward spiral" thinking people... oh now 4k is not good enough anymore, we need 8k to get rid of artifacts, but the fact is that we will end up seeing more artifacts because we need even higher bitrates to make higher resolution image look good.
But for RUclips I highly recommend uploading in 4k. 4K looks much better (based on transcoding and higher bitrate), but the fact is that a 2k image at a higher bitrate can even look better. ;)
@@StefanRingelschwandtner I think that the higher the resolution the more compression they use to capture the image in the first place. 8k capture is going to mean more compression - so one thing may negate the other.
Thanks for this!
best video explanation about 2k vs 4k , file compression and viewing distances!! Stefan you are really great! thanks for the effort and time you put on this. My doubts were if I should invest in a 27 inch 4k monitor since I already have a 27 inch 1440p one.. Im always sitting around 60-72 cm away ( my desk is not too wide 77 cm). and in my 27 - 1440p I can't see any pixels pictures look sharp and clear ..
Thank you!
i used to bum over 4k but ive made the switch to 2k 300hz and ill never go back now.
good presentation
so here's my question: from what i've heard higher bit rates are helpful for live action. would 4k factor into that? obviously if the bit rate overflows your download bit rate, that's a problem but would it be noticeable if it didn't? things like American football, for example i've heard are used as examples. also: don't the codecs matter insofar as it they may code for 4k, but the quality is lowered to lessen the output bit rate? sort of like the quality setting for a jpeg. doesn't do much good if you have 4k but the codec has been dialed down to a much less quality.
thx though. this was my suspicion overall.
Very good video thank you 👍😎
Brilliant! Excellent analysis, and matches the observations of anyone with functional eyes and a brain. When will people learn that what they want is better bitrate/compression rather than resolution, and that yearly increases in camera resolution just make the problem worse, not better. Give me a pristine 1080p image over a low-bitrate 12K image any day of the week. Morons.
Great comparison, but one thing to consider is that you are using tight detailed shots. I imagine the difference would maybe be much more apparent with wider or more landscape shots.
Stilll, viewing distance is very important. That microdetail gets lost at certain distance, its more practical use is zoom & crop, not microdetail, unless you like to get up from your seat to see a static frame.
4k is a waste now for gaming not productivity sweetspot now is 2k 1440p with all games running at ultra high fps high refresh rate etc
2k is marketed as 1440p, which is what i thought this video was comparing 4k to. There is a very obvious difference between 1080p and 4k, there is a notable difference between 1080p and 1440p even.
So basically for viewing purposes, consumer use, 4K is kinda overkill, kinda useless, a waste of resources, like soon to be 8K. For production use, totally usefull.
I am planning to buy a 27" monitor. for browsing and programming. Should I buy 4k or 2k? Thanks!
I would always choose 4k for surfing and programming.
Красавчик. Есть конечно чуток акцента русского, но в целом классно говоришь на англисском
Watching from 1080p ** 🤡🤡
1080 is 1K? 2K is 2560 x 1440
1080p = 1920 × 1080 pixel
2k = 2048 × 1080 pixel
Quote from Wikipedia: "For television and consumer media, 1920 × 1080 is the most common 2K resolution, but this is normally referred to as 1080p"
Jeff you are more correct mate. 1440p is essentially a native 2k display.
Referring to 1080p as 2k is a very old naming system. It's based on total megapixels like old digital camera sensor resolution. Based on that system a 4k monitor would now be called 8k because it displays 8.3 million pixels.
@@originalface320 No, actually you and Jeff are wrong.
2K and 4K refer to the Horizontal Resolution.
So 1920x1080 HD is close to 2000 or 2K, and likewise 3820x2160 UHD is also rounded up to 4000 or 4K.
There IS however a discrepancy between consumer HD/UHD vs DCI 2K and DCI 4K, which are 2048x1080 and 4096x2160 respectively.
Now, while I'm typing this on Dual 2560x1440 27-inch displays, those don't use HD/UHD/DCI classifications, but rather computer classifications, in this case QHD. Online some people call anything anything, and in the camera world I've heard this called 2.5K, but at least that mistake is attempting to demonstrate something.
There's no "old naming system" and it has nothing to do with megapixels or camera sensor resolution. And actually if you want to know, 8K resolution is 7680x4320 UHD, & 8192x4320 DCI.
for photo editing ok, but no one its gonna watch 200x zoom
🔥 ░p░r░o░m░o░s░m░
i dont understand this comparison..
are we talking about blurays or 2 vs 4k in general
2k vs 4k in general. This video is proving that at normal viewing distances, the human eye cannot discern the difference between 2K and 4K resolutions.